DEAR MISS MANNERS: I want to be upfront and admit that I'm a picky eater, and that I am also on a budget. So I rarely say yes to work invitations to order out. However, whenever I am in charge of ordering for our group, I make sure to invite everyone.

One day, our group was planning to eat lunch together and decided to order from one of my favorite restaurants, where I haven't been for a long time. I found out about the order only when their food came.

I was very hurt and dismayed that I was excluded. I do not expect to be included every time someone orders takeout. But I would think that when a group of people is planning to eat together, the polite thing is to let everyone invited know their options.

Am I wrong? If I am right, is there a way to convey that, without being rude, so that nobody feels this way in the future?

GENTLE READER: In principle, everyone in the same small group should be invited to participate. The practice is trickier with a longstanding group who know one another's preferences -- particularly in an age where it is easy to offend unintentionally.

Miss Manners has no trouble imagining a person taking offense at receiving a sixth invitation (after giving five refusals) on the grounds that she does not like to be reminded that she is on a budget. It would be best for everyone to assume good intentions -- and for you to tell a few co-workers that you love that particular restaurant, in the hope that they will remember for next time.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I occasionally dine with a small group of friends, and we engage in conversation both during dinner and after. However, whenever I start to speak, one friend will turn to begin a side conversation with the person next to him. Although I immediately pause and give a rather icy stare, this does not stop my friend from continuing his new conversation, making it so that I don't finish mine.

I've always felt that, particularly in small groups, only one person should talk at a time while others listen, and that to start another conversation while someone is speaking is a rude interruption. My friend disagrees, saying that simultaneous conversations are allowed, and that my abrupt silence is the rude gesture. Which of us is correct?

GENTLE READER: Although she sides with your friend that multiple conversations are permissible, Miss Manners notes that you may have a different idea of how to begin such side discussions politely. Interrupting another person mid-sentence is rude. It is therefore material whether your friend spoke to the person next to him when you were about to speak, or when you were already speaking.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I work in a business where the door to the men's room is the traditional type of door you would find in a residence. In other words, it has a doorknob that you turn to gain entry, as opposed to a door that you simply push to enter and that automatically closes.

I have a long-running debate with a co-worker who always completely closes the door after using the room. When I see that that door is closed, I assume the restroom is occupied, and therefore suspend my business until I see that the door has been left ajar.

At some point, I am forced to knock on the door. I am hesitant to do this, because if someone is in there, I have just interrupted their privacy.

I have talked with my co-worker until I'm blue in the face, but he will not change his behavior. His argument is that seeing a toilet from the hallway is unsightly, and therefore his action is helping project a cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing public area.

I don't disagree with his logic, but would it hurt to leave the door mostly closed and send the signal that the room is unoccupied? He has agreed to abide by your opinion on this matter.

GENTLE READER: You neglect to mention whether you will also abide by Miss Manners' decision. She asks only because you are both right, and you are both wrong.

Office decorum accepts on faith that the toilet facilities are fully equipped without requiring -- or wanting -- visual confirmation. Perhaps your door is well-behaved enough to remain slightly open without also revealing what lies beyond. In this case, a half-open-door policy is acceptable.

A closed-door policy is also allowed -- if those on the other side understand it and do not, as you fear, jump when they hear the inevitable knock.

A third solution would be a reversible sign on the door like the ones that warn other members of the household whether the dishes in the dishwasher are dirty or clean. This would not be acceptable at home, where it is easier to know who is where.

How much of the office will need to be consulted to agree upon a solution will depend on your office culture -- and how much actual work there is keeping people busy. Miss Manners' only preference is that, if you agree on a reversible sign, you choose one whose message is businesslike.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I attended a late-afternoon lecture, in a stuffy room, on a topic that wasn't as interesting as I had hoped. Unfortunately, I nodded off once or twice.

I didn't know what to do: stay and risk nodding off again, or leave and risk catching everyone's attention and disrupting the speaker? I really didn't want to do either, but it was a really boring lecture.

GENTLE READER: Unfair as it may seem, visibly sleeping through a lecture is rude. Your choice is therefore to excuse yourself or to learn how to sleep without getting caught.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am about to use the cut direct in a social situation on someone who absolutely merits it. Everyone in our social circle agrees that this person, an unmarried lady of equal social status to me, has behaved in an outrageous manner to both me and my romantic partner.

We are soon to attend a gathering which this person will also attend, and I am prepared with my ultimate social weapon of choice. There is no possible way that I could ever agree to return to friendly terms with this rather odious and petulant person.

This leaves but one question which I must ask: In the case where another person has already, albeit clumsily, done the social cut, can one do it back? Or has the situation thus descended into childishness?

GENTLE READER: Well, you can't do it simultaneously, if that is what you mean. And if this person, whom Miss Manners gathers you do not like, is already cutting you, there will be no opportunity for you to do so.

This is because the cut direct, which is the ultimate weapon under social circumstances -- so much less disturbing than fisticuffs -- depends on the confusion of the person being cut, who was presumably about to extend a greeting. If your target has no such expectation, it does not work.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is there a specific way to present a teardrop diamond engagement ring in the box when proposing?

GENTLE READER: This may be one of Miss Manners' all-time favorite questions, presuming, as it does, that there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

She is game.

Presumably you are asking whether the pointed or the rounded part should face the lady. Miss Manners chooses the round part. The diamond will look bigger that way. Plus, it is rude to point.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Many recommendations in etiquette books focus on wealthy people in large homes with servants. Our home is more modest, but we still want to express courtesy, and often use courtesy titles in our correspondence.

But it seems almost improper to address a greeting card to a small boy -- whether at his birthday, Halloween or simply to say, "Hi, grandson!" -- as "Master Jimmy Jones." It suggests that he is "master" over inferiors. Is "master" still recommended/required as the title for a boy on an envelope?

GENTLE READER: Please allow Miss Manners to deal first with your opening remark.

Etiquette books rarely focus on rich people with servants. The servants they hire know the rules and can, if necessary, subtly teach them to their employers: "Certainly, madam, but I believe the usual way is to serve the ice cream last, not first."

Now to your question: "Master" was indeed the courtesy title for boys, although it has mostly passed out of use. For that matter, few people use courtesy titles at all, which is unfortunate.

Still, it is time to let "master" go. Its association with slavery has tainted even such unrelated use as "master bedroom" or "housemaster." Besides, the title of "miss" is applied to little girls from birth, so it hardly seems necessary to distinguish between little boys and big ones.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)